Virgil Exner; how dull the Autosphere would have been without you. Yes, there were a few cars along the that were a bit challenging, shall we say? And the whole 1962 debacle; well, we’ll just forget that. Even as a kid I never mistook your stuff for anything coming out of GM’s studios. You’d never have fit in with Earl or Mitchell (actually, Exner started his career there with Earl way back).

You were always trying new things, taking huge risks…with your employer’s sheer survival, it seemed at times. Your semi-eponymous XNR from 1960 is pretty representative of your Valiant work of that era: the splayed out fins and sloping back, and those most distinct hips. And that asymmetrical hood that resolves into the instrument panel and those front fins; Exneruberance at its finest.

Exner loved to drive sports cars (natch), and the XNR was very much drivable, based on the new 1960 Valiant, and plenty brisk. 250 hp Hyper-Pak 170 CID slant six. And that face; well, it eventually got recycled, but it took about a decade or so…

9 Comments

There is uncertainty as to what engine was actually in the car when it was new. Press release from Chrysler stated only that it was a slant-6. Popular press reported that it was a Hyper-Pak: a slant-6 with long-ram 4bbl intake, cast iron headers, high compression, big cam, stiff valve springs, and so on; see here and subsequent post with pics of a Hyper-Pak installed in a ’61 Dodge Lancer. You can see that the XNR’s left-side hood scoop likely would’ve interfaced well with the placement of the carburetor on the Hyper-Pak intake. But what the car actually had probably depends on exactly how it was displayed. If it was shown with the hood closed, it probably had a perfectly ordinary stock ’60 Valiant 101hp 170 CID 1bbl unit. If it was shown with the hood open, probably Hyper-Pak. A lot of “Hemi” Chrysler concept cars had 383s or smaller non-Hemi engines under their (closed) hoods, despite the fender badging and promotional brochures.

Great to hear that someone is resurrecting the XNR, one of the more unusual show cars of that era.

Interestingly, Exner wanted to apply off-center details to the 1962 Plymouth. Several full-size clay models show a windsplit and license plate depression clearly mounted to one side of the car. Management stepped in and demanded that they be centered for production.

I had never made the connection to the 1971-72 Plymouth Sebring. Exner was way ahead of his time in many areas. His 1962 line, as he originally envisioned it, featured a four-door hardtop roofline that looked a great deal like the one GM used for its 1971 B-bodies, while the two-door hardtop roofline was a dead ringer for the one used on the full-size 1965 Chevrolet!

For what it’s worth, I made that connection with the grille myself, and I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone else make it. I assume someone at Chrysler must have had it in the back of their heads when the time came…

Exner seems like one designer that did better work when the bosses kept his leash short, and worse otherwise. Kind of the opposite dynamic of GM and their designers.

I wonder what things would have looked like if Mitchell had run the show at a seemingly-permissive Chrysler from, say, the 1959 model year to about 1975. He sure wouldn’t have done the ’60 Plymouth as Exner did, nor the ’62.

Am I the only person who loved the 1962 Plymouth?
When I was a kid, my father got a new company car every Fall. He had a choice of Chevrolet, Ford, or Plymouth.
His 1960 car was the Chevy Bel Air.
In 1961, he chose the outrageous looking Plymouth Belvedere.
I was all excited when I saw the 1962 Plymouth – Ward Cleaver drove one on Leave it to Beaver.
I thought it was beautiful, but Dad said that he wasn’t going to have a ‘little’ car and got a Ford Galaxie instead.
I think the Ford was actually a much better car. It certainly had a nicer and quieter ride than the ’61 Plymouth.
Nevertheless, I was brokenhearted to never have that ’62 Plymouth. I still want one.